32 wrote:How in the name of God can 2 people have voted for David Lee?

Anyone wanna man up and explain how you figured our All-NBA 3rd team player is our most expendable player? Moreso than BENCH players...?

Outside of Warrior fans there's a lot of people who believe he didn't deserve to be on that list. I'm talking about fans in general. Honestly speaking I was pleasantly surprised that he made it myself. Anyway, the only reason this is even a discussion is because we unseated a 3rd seeded team and took San Antonio to 6 games. We had Lee (without Bogut) against the Denver in the regular season and won 1 game out of 4 by 1/10th of a second. You probably don't put much stock into that, but I do. Although I think Lee is very good, I don't think this team's success hinges on him.

Well, for starters, I don't believe the team's success hinges on Lee either. As I said in the original post, I see this team's success as a result from 4 men's production whose games are so compatible, the sum of their parts equals something greater than what they'd accomplish alone. Lee is one of those players. And I'll speak on why in a second, but just in my own opinion:

Why the All-NBA Team is tough to get on:

All-NBA 3rd Team is hysterically subjective. What people want out of an All-NBA player varies greatly. Could be stats, could be something they see watching, could be team success, could be based on a guy's track record. Naturally, everybody claims that they're using a combination of all-of-the-above - in an attempt to sound subject - but most guys use either stats or the eye test, with varying weight placed on how said guy's team did.

The All-NBA teams, likewise, differ from actual starting 5's. Sometimes the first team has 3 forwards and no center (like this year), sometimes 2 shooting guards and no point, sometimes both forwards are small forwards without a 4 (again, like this year), etc etc. So the All-NBA teams have evolved away from the 80's and early 90's, when most All-NBA teams could be used as an actual TEAM - hence the name.

Why Lee was chosen:

I understand why you're claiming people outside of Warriors fans are upset, but the fact is, objectively speaking, you take the top 10 power forwards, in terms of PER, for the sake of time and efficiency. You axe out anyone playing less than 30 MPG (gotta be a starter to be compared with other starts) - so Anthony Davis & Amar'e Stoudamire go first. Then, you shoot down anyone whose team missed the playoffs - unless that player had a God-like season - which eliminates Paul Milsap, Dirk Nowitski, and LaMarcus Alderige. At this point, you remove any obvious winners from the equation, so Tim Duncan - who was head and shoulders better than anyone - is carted immediately into the winner's circle. That leaves you 2 more spots for 4 guys: Blake Griffin, David Lee, David West, and Serge Ibaka. IMO, Ibaka gets thrown out because he's not an option on offense. This is not the All-Defense Team; I know he added a perimeter jumper this year, but he can't put the ball on the floor at all and couldn't pass if he was a Ferrari racing a garbage truck on the freeway. At that point, you pull Griffin out like Duncan and just reward him on the spot (since his team was a top seed and his PER is clearly ahead of both Dave's). So it comes down to 2 guys: Lee vs West. And since both played major roles in their teams' overachieving success, I just glance at who takes more major categories. West's PER is higher, but Lee is better in literally every other category that matters (TS%, Rebounding Rate, Assist Ratio) plus he plays more minutes and has a lower usage rate than West. Throw in his league-leading status in 20-10 games (and double-doubles overall) and the choice becomes obvious to me. West is equally helpless on defense as Lee, so you can't really penalize Lee there (even though, 8th, you've begun to make a habit out of needling Lee for his defense... and, honestly, I don't think he's nearly as bad as you claim he is defensively. He's not KG, but he's not helpless either). I'm sure homers of every corner of the globe can give me a surprisingly convincing shpeal as to why their guy deserved it over Lee... don't even get me started on those Nugget tools. But the fact is, the award is insanely subjective and Lee just happened to be selected this year. Good for him; I believe he deserved it.

Why the Warriors success (partially) hinges on Lee:

Lee is the fulcrum on the Warriors offense. Curry is the star who gets all the fanboys and girls and TV coverage and BSPN love, but this team goes nowhere without David Lee this year. And the Spurs proved it. Without Lee in the game, the Warriors go back to who they were between 1995-2010: a team built around guards, relying on the fundamentally flawed Nellieball to try and eek out some cheap victories in the hopes that the other squad is goaded into a track meet to wash out any competition of skill and simply let whomever is luckier behind the 3-point arc on that particular night come out on top. The value of a 52% shooter who gets 20 points a night cannot be overstated. With Lee, teams are forced to pay heavy attention to (and, when he gets rolling, double team) a post scoring threat. This opens up the perimeter and if your post player can pass, you will get an open shot. Lee is a top 2 passing PF; Pau Gasol is literally the only guy in his league. So, essentially, Lee can score easy baskets, he shoots well from the line, his range goes out to 17 feet, and should the other team choose to put extra pressure or defenders on him, he's the best at his position at finding the open man. He is the absolute perfect compliment to our sharp-shooting backcourt.

WITHOUT him, Poppovich sent heavy defense at Thompson and Curry, making a point to sag somebody off of either Andrew Bogut, Carl Landry, Draymond Green, Andris Biedrins, or Festus Ezeli in an attempt to dare our front court to beat them. Simply put, Bogut, Biedrins, and Ezeli can't score from more than 4 feet away, Green is somebody the other team would love to try and beat them, and Landry is a black hole who doesn't pass out so teams force the ball into his hands and trap him on the baseline.

Simply put, Lee has spoiled some of our fans.

We've gone from begging the Gods for ANY semblance of an offensive big to taking our All-NBA 3rd Team PF for granted. In my opinion, I'd pay big-time money to see that Spurs series with a 100% DLee in tow...

Lee deserved to make the all nba 3rd team and definately much more than Griffin made the 2nd team. People don't seem to realise how valuable Lee is to the team. He is the inside offensive player that allows Curry and Klay to get open a fair bit. You don't trade a great player who was allstar deservingly unless you get someone better in return and as I've said recently, unless it's Love from the TWolves Lee's a keeper, as are pretty much all the starters.

32 wrote:How in the name of God can 2 people have voted for David Lee?

Anyone wanna man up and explain how you figured our All-NBA 3rd team player is our most expendable player? Moreso than BENCH players...?

Outside of Warrior fans there's a lot of people who believe he didn't deserve to be on that list. I'm talking about fans in general. Honestly speaking I was pleasantly surprised that he made it myself. Anyway, the only reason this is even a discussion is because we unseated a 3rd seeded team and took San Antonio to 6 games. We had Lee (without Bogut) against the Denver in the regular season and won 1 game out of 4 by 1/10th of a second. You probably don't put much stock into that, but I do. Although I think Lee is very good, I don't think this team's success hinges on him.

Well, for starters, I don't believe the team's success hinges on Lee either. As I said in the original post, I see this team's success as a result from 4 men's production whose games are so compatible, the sum of their parts equals something greater than what they'd accomplish alone. Lee is one of those players. And I'll speak on why in a second, but just in my own opinion:

Why the All-NBA Team is tough to get on:

All-NBA 3rd Team is hysterically subjective. What people want out of an All-NBA player varies greatly. Could be stats, could be something they see watching, could be team success, could be based on a guy's track record. Naturally, everybody claims that they're using a combination of all-of-the-above - in an attempt to sound subject - but most guys use either stats or the eye test, with varying weight placed on how said guy's team did.

The All-NBA teams, likewise, differ from actual starting 5's. Sometimes the first team has 3 forwards and no center (like this year), sometimes 2 shooting guards and no point, sometimes both forwards are small forwards without a 4 (again, like this year), etc etc. So the All-NBA teams have evolved away from the 80's and early 90's, when most All-NBA teams could be used as an actual TEAM - hence the name.

Why Lee was chosen:

I understand why you're claiming people outside of Warriors fans are upset, but the fact is, objectively speaking, you take the top 10 power forwards, in terms of PER, for the sake of time and efficiency. You axe out anyone playing less than 30 MPG (gotta be a starter to be compared with other starts) - so Anthony Davis & Amar'e Stoudamire go first. Then, you shoot down anyone whose team missed the playoffs - unless that player had a God-like season - which eliminates Paul Milsap, Dirk Nowitski, and LaMarcus Alderige. At this point, you remove any obvious winners from the equation, so Tim Duncan - who was head and shoulders better than anyone - is carted immediately into the winner's circle. That leaves you 2 more spots for 4 guys: Blake Griffin, David Lee, David West, and Serge Ibaka. IMO, Ibaka gets thrown out because he's not an option on offense. This is not the All-Defense Team; I know he added a perimeter jumper this year, but he can't put the ball on the floor at all and couldn't pass if he was a Ferrari racing a garbage truck on the freeway. At that point, you pull Griffin out like Duncan and just reward him on the spot (since his team was a top seed and his PER is clearly ahead of both Dave's). So it comes down to 2 guys: Lee vs West. And since both played major roles in their teams' overachieving success, I just glance at who takes more major categories. West's PER is higher, but Lee is better in literally every other category that matters (TS%, Rebounding Rate, Assist Ratio) plus he plays more minutes and has a lower usage rate than West. Throw in his league-leading status in 20-10 games (and double-doubles overall) and the choice becomes obvious to me. West is equally helpless on defense as Lee, so you can't really penalize Lee there (even though, 8th, you've begun to make a habit out of needling Lee for his defense... and, honestly, I don't think he's nearly as bad as you claim he is defensively. He's not KG, but he's not helpless either). I'm sure homers of every corner of the globe can give me a surprisingly convincing shpeal as to why their guy deserved it over Lee... don't even get me started on those Nugget tools. But the fact is, the award is insanely subjective and Lee just happened to be selected this year. Good for him; I believe he deserved it.

Why the Warriors success (partially) hinges on Lee:

Lee is the fulcrum on the Warriors offense. Curry is the star who gets all the fanboys and girls and TV coverage and BSPN love, but this team goes nowhere without David Lee this year. And the Spurs proved it. Without Lee in the game, the Warriors go back to who they were between 1995-2010: a team built around guards, relying on the fundamentally flawed Nellieball to try and eek out some cheap victories in the hopes that the other squad is goaded into a track meet to wash out any competition of skill and simply let whomever is luckier behind the 3-point arc on that particular night come out on top. The value of a 52% shooter who gets 20 points a night cannot be overstated. With Lee, teams are forced to pay heavy attention to (and, when he gets rolling, double team) a post scoring threat. This opens up the perimeter and if your post player can pass, you will get an open shot. Lee is a top 2 passing PF; Pau Gasol is literally the only guy in his league. So, essentially, Lee can score easy baskets, he shoots well from the line, his range goes out to 17 feet, and should the other team choose to put extra pressure or defenders on him, he's the best at his position at finding the open man. He is the absolute perfect compliment to our sharp-shooting backcourt.

WITHOUT him, Poppovich sent heavy defense at Thompson and Curry, making a point to sag somebody off of either Andrew Bogut, Carl Landry, Draymond Green, Andris Biedrins, or Festus Ezeli in an attempt to dare our front court to beat them. Simply put, Bogut, Biedrins, and Ezeli can't score from more than 4 feet away, Green is somebody the other team would love to try and beat them, and Landry is a black hole who doesn't pass out so teams force the ball into his hands and trap him on the baseline.

Simply put, Lee has spoiled some of our fans.

We've gone from begging the Gods for ANY semblance of an offensive big to taking our All-NBA 3rd Team PF for granted. In my opinion, I'd pay big-time money to see that Spurs series with a 100% DLee in tow...

This is a really tough subject. I hope I'm not giving the impression that I dislike Lee or that I take him for granted because this is not the case. In the grand scheme of things, I believe that he was instrumental in our success, the same way I think Curry, Thompson, Landry, and Jack was instrumental in our winning ways. I guess the difference between me and you is that I'd risk sacrificing what he provides on offense to have someone come in and contribute more on defense because I think that would lead to more wins. You probably believe that his offensive capabilities far outweigh his defensive short comings and he'll help acquire wins in that way. At the end of the day neither of us can be proven right or wrong, but I'd be more than willing to discuss with you my perspective of why he is expendable, and that reason is defense.

(even though, 8th, you've begun to make a habit out of needling Lee for his defense... and, honestly, I don't think he's nearly as bad as you claim he is defensively. He's not KG, but he's not helpless either)

As I've stated before, this is at the heart of why both of our opinions on Lee differ. You probably think he's in the middle of the pack where I think he is probably somewhere at the bottom of the ladder. Not too long ago there was some kind of statistical convention conducted by MIT Sloan. It's a business school of some sort, but they did statistical analysis on NBA players and this year I think the focus was on defense. I read 2 articles about how terrible Lee's defense is. Here's one article and a research paper that was conducted on defensive data.

The article talks about how they eviscerated Lee at this convention. I think it's important to note that there were representatives from all NBA teams that attended this convention with an exception to the Lakers. Even Lacob was in attendance. You can only imagine how embarrassing that could've been.

In terms of the research paper, it uses spatial data to look at player tendencies and effectiveness. In this image you'll see Lee compared to Larry Sanders and league averages. Needless to say that Lee is pretty damn awful at protecting the rim. Not only does he not protect the rim, he does it in a manner that is one of the league worst. If you scroll down to the bottom of the research paper, it'll give you more statistical data, and in terms of FG%, Lee's opponents shot 61% when Lee was guarding them close to the basket. Only 1 other person was worse in this category and that was Louis Scola. For more comparison, here is a list of players who defend significantly better than Lee and still can score on the low block:

Lee more than deserved being an all-star, he was the major reason for our record, plus the number he put up was amongst the best. Maybe he didnt deserve if the team wasn't winning. If not Lee then who ? I don't get it.

warriorsstepup wrote:Lee more than deserved being an all-star, he was the major reason for our record, plus the number he put up was amongst the best. Maybe he didnt deserve if the team wasn't winning. If not Lee then who ? I don't get it.

warriorsstepup wrote:Lee more than deserved being an all-star, he was the major reason for our record, plus the number he put up was amongst the best. Maybe he didnt deserve if the team wasn't winning. If not Lee then who ? I don't get it.

Curry

Curry didn't start coming along fully until near and after the All-star break. We have that documented in the All-star thread, Curry was not part of the discussion, strictly Lee. But Curry will get his soon.

I am saying if people don't want Lee on the team or like his game, then which other PF would come in and produce ? I am saying their is not many.

Curry was still better than Lee for the first half of the season. I know a lot of people on general nba forums were surprised Lee made it over Curry, but the rationalization here is "too many good guards." Which is a good argument. You can't just have a bunch of guards in the all star game.

First, Curry was not shooting too well before the all-star break close to 40% i believe, and had only netted.

Also before all-star break he netted games scoring 30 plus points a total of four times. After the all-star break, he netted nine, including games going bizark at 54 (Knicks), 37, 38, 39, 47. All after the break. Plus a few injures didn't help Curry either, not much I think a total of four.

Now add to the fact Lee was one of the most efficient players in the league shooting over 50%, regardless of position, gave him the edge, plus consistency, wins.

As far as guard being such a good position, they are playing at competition with each other and while they are stacked doesn't undermine Lee's accomplishment, he more than deserved it.

Curry was made for advanced stats. 40 percent is like "woah, that's bad" but because of threes and free throw his true shooting was 570 I believe (which is very good). Plus a +rated defender.

I will agree though that Lee is a more consistent scorer and can reliably give us points. I am not sure how to check the standard deviation for each players averages, but I am pretty sure Lee gave us consistently 18-22 points. Nothing Crazy like Curry, but he also never only had six point games like Curry.

warriorsstepup wrote:Lee more than deserved being an all-star, he was the major reason for our record, plus the number he put up was amongst the best. Maybe he didnt deserve if the team wasn't winning. If not Lee then who ? I don't get it.

Curry

Curry didn't start coming along fully until near and after the All-star break. We have that documented in the All-star thread, Curry was not part of the discussion, strictly Lee. But Curry will get his soon.

I am saying if people don't want Lee on the team or like his game, then which other PF would come in and produce ? I am saying their is not many.